Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    unsupported SFP+ error

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved
    Hardware
    2
    12
    523
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • federicopF
      federicop
      last edited by

      I purchased this model https://www.amazon.it/gp/product/B0C4H4CFSQ/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
      and everything works perfectly.

      After about a week of testing, I decided to purchase a second identical model to install, and that's when the problems started.

      Configuration:
      2.7.0-RELEASE (amd64)
      built on Wed Jun 28 03:53:34 UTC 2023
      FreeBSD 14.0-CURRENT

      Hardware:
      Intel(R) Pentium(R) Gold G5420 CPU @ 3.80GHz
      Current: 3492 MHz, Max: 3800 MHz
      4 CPUs: 1 package(s) x 2 core(s) x 2 hardware threads
      AES-NI CPU Crypto: Yes (active)
      QAT Crypto: No

      Motherboard: Asus Prime B365-PLUS [link to Asus website]
      (I had disassembled it some time ago) with two PCIe3 slots (16x).

      Now, the first card works perfectly, while the second one doesn't. Same model, same everything... or rather, I correct the second one. If I start pfSense with the SFP+ connector, it gives an unsupported SFP+ error. So, I modified the /boot/loader.conf.local file by adding the line hw.ix.unsupported_sfp="1" as described in several discussions (without solving the problem). If I connect SFP+ after startup, it shows Unknown <rxpause,txpause> but it works.

      Could someone help me with this issue?

      The first card, when I connect SFP+, shows 10Gbase-Twinax <full-duplex,rxpause,txpause>.

      Thank you

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • stephenw10S
        stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
        last edited by

        That's using the same SFP module?

        If so those NICs must not be identical. Check the reported firmware versions in the boot log or sysctls.

        Steve

        federicopF 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • federicopF
          federicop @stephenw10
          last edited by

          @stephenw10

          the cable is identical but not the same.

          the dmesg log is this (I notice the PCI data which is different even though the manual says that the slots are identical - ix0: PCI Express Bus: Speed 5.0GT/s Width x8 - ix3: PCI Express Bus: Speed 5.0GT/s Width x4)

          ix0: <Intel(R) X520 82599ES (SFI/SFP+)> port 0xe020-0xe03f mem 0xf0280000-0xf02fffff,0xf0304000-0xf0307fff irq 16 at device 0.0 on pci1
          ix0: Using 2048 TX descriptors and 2048 RX descriptors
          ix0: Using 4 RX queues 4 TX queues
          ix0: Using MSI-X interrupts with 5 vectors
          ix0: allocated for 4 queues
          ix0: allocated for 4 rx queues
          ix0: Ethernet address: a0:36:9f:37:a9:0c
          ix0: PCI Express Bus: Speed 5.0GT/s Width x8
          ix0: Option ROM V1-b1018-p0 eTrack 0x800006d1 PHY FW V65535
          ix0: netmap queues/slots: TX 4/2048, RX 4/2048
          ix1: <Intel(R) X520 82599ES (SFI/SFP+)> port 0xe000-0xe01f mem 0xf0200000-0xf027ffff,0xf0300000-0xf0303fff irq 17 at device 0.1 on pci1
          ix1: Using 2048 TX descriptors and 2048 RX descriptors
          ix1: Using 4 RX queues 4 TX queues
          ix1: Using MSI-X interrupts with 5 vectors
          ix1: allocated for 4 queues
          ix1: allocated for 4 rx queues
          ix1: Ethernet address: a0:36:9f:37:a9:0d
          ix1: PCI Express Bus: Speed 5.0GT/s Width x8
          ix1: Option ROM V1-b1018-p0 eTrack 0x800006d1 PHY FW V65535
          ix1: netmap queues/slots: TX 4/2048, RX 4/2048
          vgapci0: <VGA-compatible display> port 0xf000-0xf03f mem 0xf4000000-0xf4ffffff,0xe0000000-0xefffffff irq 16 at device 2.0 on pci0
          vgapci0: Boot video devi

          ca7430b3-ca48-4670-b650-742227bb07bc-immagine.png ix2: <Intel(R) X520 82599ES (SFI/SFP+)> port 0xa020-0xa03f mem 0xf0080000-0xf00fffff,0xf0104000-0xf0107fff irq 16 at device 0.0 on pci5
          ix2: Using 2048 TX descriptors and 2048 RX descriptors
          ix2: Using 4 RX queues 4 TX queues
          ix2: Using MSI-X interrupts with 5 vectors
          ix2: allocated for 4 queues
          ix2: allocated for 4 rx queues
          ix2: Ethernet address: a0:36:9f:37:a9:ae
          ix2: PCI Express Bus: Speed 5.0GT/s Width x4
          ix2: Option ROM V1-b1018-p0 eTrack 0x800006d1 PHY FW V65535
          ix2: netmap queues/slots: TX 4/2048, RX 4/2048
          ix3: <Intel(R) X520 82599ES (SFI/SFP+)> port 0xa000-0xa01f mem 0xf0000000-0xf007ffff,0xf0100000-0xf0103fff irq 17 at device 0.1 on pci5
          ix3: Using 2048 TX descriptors and 2048 RX descriptors
          ix3: Using 4 RX queues 4 TX queues
          ix3: Using MSI-X interrupts with 5 vectors
          ix3: allocated for 4 queues
          ix3: allocated for 4 rx queues
          ix3: Ethernet address: a0:36:9f:37:a9:af
          ix3: PCI Express Bus: Speed 5.0GT/s Width x4
          ix3: Option ROM V1-b1018-p0 eTrack 0x800006d1 PHY FW V65535
          ix3: netmap queues/slots: TX 4/2048, RX 4/2048
          pcib7: <ACPI PCI-PCI bridge> irq 16 at device 29.0 on pci0
          pcib8: <ACPI PCI-PCI bridge> irq 19 at device 29.3 on pci0
          pci6: <ACPI PCI bus> on pcib8

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • stephenw10S
            stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
            last edited by

            Hmm, OK that looks like the same Option ROM and firmware version.

            OK I would swapping the cables so you are actually using the same cable. There's a chance that's coded differently.

            federicopF 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • federicopF
              federicop @stephenw10
              last edited by

              @stephenw10 said in unsupported SFP+ error:

              Hmm, OK that looks like the same Option ROM and firmware version.

              OK I would swapping the cables so you are actually using the same cable. There's a chance that's coded differently.

              so the cable could have different codecs? Meaning what?
              I use this cable https://www.amazon.it/gp/product/B01MRPJ60I/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

              the question ix0: PCI Express Bus: Speed ​​5.0GT/s Width x8 - ix3: PCI Express Bus: Speed ​​5.0GT/s Width x4) you say it has no effect?

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • stephenw10S
                stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                last edited by

                SFP modules, and hence the ends of DAC cables, have some electronics in them to identify themselves. They can often be coded to work with specific switches for example. The cables you have may not be coded the same.

                federicopF 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • federicopF
                  federicop @stephenw10
                  last edited by

                  @stephenw10

                  nice discovery 😲 ! so it could depend on the cable!

                  a curiosity.... but can I connect and disconnect the cables while hot or do I always have to turn off the devices?

                  tks

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • stephenw10S
                    stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                    last edited by

                    They should be hot swappable but if you only see that error when booting with it already connected you'd need to do that to test.

                    federicopF 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                    • federicopF
                      federicop @stephenw10
                      last edited by

                      @stephenw10

                      OK. Changed the cable and it seems to work. I see speed in pfsense dashboad and I see speed in vmware esxi.

                      but if I do the IPFER speed test I don't go beyond 5 Gb/s.

                      3.png

                      test pfsense 2.7.2 Vs Winserver2019 VM vmwareEsxi 6.5

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • stephenw10S
                        stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                        last edited by

                        Can that Win Server VM push more than that?

                        Try testing through pfSense instead of to/from it directly; that will always give a lower result.

                        One iperf instance is single threaded so you may be hitting a limit on one CPU core.

                        federicopF 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • federicopF
                          federicop @stephenw10
                          last edited by

                          @stephenw10

                          What do you mean by testing directly from pfsense?

                          I installed operf on pfsese and run the command to reach the win server.

                          The WIN server (VM) is mounted on server a 4 CPUs x Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1225 v6 @ 3.30GHz and configured with
                          CPU Cores 4
                          Sockets 2
                          Cores for Socket 2
                          Memory 50GB
                          MSSQL server (Heavier service)

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • stephenw10S
                            stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                            last edited by

                            Right, if you are running iperf3 on pfSense you will always see a lower result because it's optimised as a router not a server.

                            To see what it's capable of you need to test through it. So run the iperf server and client on two different devices connected to two separate interfaces in pfSense.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • First post
                              Last post